Stuff

Two new voting intention polls today. The first by Survation for Good Morning Britain had topline figures of CON 48%(+1), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 4%(nc). Clearly there is no substantial change since their poll a week ago. Fieldwork was conducted on Friday and Saturday, after the leak of the Labour manifesto, and doesn’t show any sign of any impact.

The second was the weekly ICM poll for the Guardian. Topline figures there are CON 48%(-1), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 6%(nc). As many have noted, ICM are now are, along with TNS, one of only two pollsters still showing Labour support below thirty points (MORI last poll did the same, but that was several weeks ago when everyone showed Labour that low). It’s not that ICM haven’t shown Labour support rising a little. ICM have been showing Labour recovering slightly, it’s just they’ve been doing so at a slightly lower figures: at the start of the campaign ICM had Labour at 25-26% and they now have them at 27%-28%.

This seems to be a consistent methodological difference. The methodological differences between pollsters are complicated and various, and some of them work in opposite directions (ICM, for example, also reallocate don’t knows in a way that helps Labour) but the most obvious one at the moment is probably the approach to turnout. Traditionally British pollsters have accounted for people’s likelihood to vote by getting respondents to estimate their own likelihood to vote – put crudely, they ask people to say how likely they are to vote on a scale of 0 to 10, and then either weight them accordingly (someone who says they are 8/10 likely to vote is only counted as 8/10ths of someone who says 10/10), or apply a cut off, ignoring people who rate their chances below 5/10 or 9/10 or 10/10. Since 2015 several companies, including YouGov and Ipsos MORI, have also factored in whether people say they have voted in the past, weighting down past non-voters.

ICM and ComRes have adopted new approaches. Rather than basing their turnout model on people’s self-reported likelihood to vote, they base it on their demographics – estimating respondent’s likelihood to vote based on their age and social grade – the assumption being that younger people and working class people will remain less likely than older, more middle class people to vote. This tends to have the effect of making the results substantially more Conservative, less Labour, meaning that ICM and ComRes tend to produce some of the biggest Tory leads.

The public end up paying anyway through increased bills. As i understand it, there is a massive backlog in works to water and sewerage infrastructure which the mostly foreign owned companies won’t find.

Wish people would put politics to one side and just look at what model is likely to deliver best result for the country. Some people as soon as you mention re-nationalisation start talking about the 1970’s and British Rail. State owned companies in other countries run efficient services, so no reason why UK can’t do the same.

Many folk benefit financially because of luck, the achievements of others suddenly makes their skills more lucrative. Johnathon Ross earned millions because others developed mass broadcasting to millions. Otherwise he might just be compere to a few hundred in a music hall. And in some careers you can’t make mistakes while in others you even get paid for failure…

In regards to the formation of a new progressive party . I doubt any one believes it would be easy and I don’t think many gleefully yearn for it’s inception but consider the mood of the labour movement in the aftermath of the likely shellacking coming it’s way , the corbynistas will be after blood with I would assume there interpretation of blame being at the feet of the p.l.p , moderates and various unbelievers with the inevitable calls for deselections , expulsion and rule changes , from the other end moderates , centralist ,a large rump of m.p’s and some unions will surely find it impossible to tolerate Corbyn’s continuing leadership and the further encroachment of the left on the levers of power within the party , something would surely have to give!

You are absolutely right about luck, and funny you should mention Oxford. I was a bus driver and a shop steward and I was sent on a TGWU training course, tutor there told me to stop wasting my time and get an education, enthused me to apply for Ruskin College, I did, got in and completed a Diploma which got me into Balliol to do my Degree. The luck ran through it, firstly the advice to apply to Ruskin not Coleg Harlech or one of the other adult TU colleges, Secondly that whilst at Ruskin my Law Tutor was Brian Bercusson a great Friend of Paul Davies who was the senior Law Tutor In Balliol and the fact that each of them took the time to convince me that I was intelligent enough to do this. If I had done A Levels instead of leaving school (to bring an income into the house because my father had left my mother and the rest of us high and dry), I would never have even thought about applying to Oxford, and probably wouldn’t have thought about studying law.

PLP are not necessarily “moderate”. Extremes of liberalism, economic and social, endless privatisations, free movement etc., are not “moderate” and are not in the centre regarding voters who have issues with free movement and actually like some nationalisation. They don’t necessarily care for the liberalism of free schools either but the “moderates” keep pushing it…

a wonderful story, and well done – it needs more than just luck to achieve what you have given where you started.

Funnily enough I used to have a coffee or beer with a few mature students at Uni (as I was a year older than the rest of the intake) and most of them did very well, but one I still remember had been a bus conductor, and years later when I came back to town he took my fare on his driver / conductor bus, so he had nearly gone right back to where he started.

There is no economic basis or need for this target. It is simply an ideological position, based on a number plucked out of thin air. This is an extremist position, along with the idea of reinstating an exclusion based education system and privatising public goods like the Land Registry.

It’s also an extremist position to continue to pay the editor of the Daily Mail £250,000 a year in agricultural subsidies, but that is what our government supports.

Nice to hear your background and yes, it chimes. Oxford wasn’t even on my radar until my mum mentioned it as my dream shortly before she died, and then the school I went to (which was an Oxbridge machine) gave a fair amount of assistance on getting in. I was completely in ignorance of the process, and all at sea anyway with mum having just died.

But the people I started out at school with on the council estate who were clearly capable didn’t necessarily get the same breaks…

Taking into account government subsidies, I’m not sure that trains are significantly cheaper in Germany than here. The UK also ranks very highly on safety.

Additionally, some of train costs are due to having to order specially made trains to deal with our tunnel sizes. No supporter of nationalisation has ever explained to me how a change in ownership deals with that problem…

Yup, luck is not handed out equally. But neither is the determination to seize whatever opportunities come your way. Nor is luck simply handed out willy nilly. Some people make it easier for luck to land on them – they make opportunities.

It would be foolish to deny the importance of luck. But not as foolish as to imagine that success is primarily the result of luck. As Gary Player said, not entirely originally, on being accused of holing a few lucky putts – “Well Mr Longhurst, I find the more i practice the luckier I get.”

@TOH “My wife’s parents both staunch Labour loved the 80’s, bought their council house and some privatised shares and improved their standard of living substantially. One still voted labour but the other cancelled out that vote from then on.”

Indeed there were more winners than losers, not to denigrate those who had it tough as we pivoted away from certain industries that we were no longer competitive in.

My Father who turns 88 next month voted Jim Callaghan in 1979 and Mrs T in 1983 and 1987 because he saw the reforms as necessary even though he initially voted against the prospect of them.

He voted for the EEC in 1975 and voted Leave in 2016. Often votes Lib Dem in the locals as he considers them competent at a local level.

His generation just laughed at Project Fear. Considered it completely ridiculous. Having hidden behind a buttress on a bridge at the age of 12 from a Meshershitt strafing run and then went through the 1940-50s rationing, the Wilson 1967 devaluation, the 1970’s 3 day week, power cuts, constant strikes, the calling in of the IMF and and winter of discontent, the idea of a possible recession to re-establish independence was a no-brainer and wasn’t even much of a consideration.

Even if we have a tough recession (I have mooted on here a possible -5% GDP) we’ll be fine and prosper in the medium to long term. The Britsh will find a way. We have always found a way.

I wondered if there are any polls that show both England and Wales separately from Scotland as in my view inclusion of Scots intentions distorts the results – showing snp as 45 nationally is meaningless. Also is there a poll that just looks at, labour marginals, conservative marginals etc, separately? The holistic approach and extrapolation of findings was, in my view, a factor in pollsters getting it wrong last time – that and inherent bias in interpretation esp BBC and sky. Note my analysis of the published polling information was spot on to within one seat for conservative maj. (paper available if interested).
thanks

I may be simplistic but I am trying to decipher your comment:
“It’s also an extremist position to continue to pay the editor of the Daily Mail £250,000 a year in agricultural subsidies, but that is what our government supports.”

Are you saying there should be no agricultural subsidies from any government, or no subsidies from government spending to any industrial or societal sector.

or you dislike the editor of the Daily Mail so much that he should not be entitled to the farming subsidies from the current CAP. Although it is mildly amusing that his wish to leave EU would remove CAP payments to his landownership.

Gary Player was enormously lucky, not to suffer a career-ending injury early on for a start. To have the opportunity to discover suitabllity for an often expensive sport early enough and many will have parents funding it. Lucky golf is popular and well-remunerated etc. etc…. he may also have discovered a good mentor, all sorts like that.

First time I ever went up in a plane, I was doing loops and barrel rolls. This is not normal. RAF instructor apparently said I was a natural pilot. Unfortunately my eyes aren’t very good…

Anyways, there are always exceptions in such things. But there are many others making money while messing things up (e.g. Bankers involved in crunch) and others who make big contributions but don’t make much, e.g. Whittle who handed his invention over for the war effort. After a couple of breakdowns…

And it is DEEPLY connected with polling hence this sort of thing keeps popping up. Attribution is central to polling…

@Alex
”
Call me odd, but the idea of reveling in my good fortune while I see queues at food banks and young people living in cardboard boxes makes me feel rather an unpleasant person.

I haven’t experienced such emotions since the 1980’s.”

Exactly how I feel, that’s why I am glad I didn’t get a tax cut in April so the Scottish Gov’t can mitigate Tory policies the housing benefit changes and bedroom tax. And that my council tax has increased 12.5% so that education for children in deprived areas can be improved.

The luck of being born in the second half of the 20th century rather than the first half of the 18th century!
The luck of being born in a highly deveoped economy rather than in Africa , much of Asia or South America!

@TOH “My wife’s parents both staunch Labour loved the 80’s, bought their council house and some privatised shares and improved their standard of living substantially. One still voted labour but the other cancelled out that vote from then on.”

Indeed there were more winners than losers, not to denigrate those who had it tough as we pivoted away from certain industries that we were no longer competitive in.

My Father who turns 88 next month voted Jim Callaghan in 1979 and Mrs T in 1983 and 1987 because he saw the reforms as necessary even though he initially voted against the prospect of them.
He voted for the EEC in 1975 and voted Leave in 2016. Often votes Lib Dem in the locals as he considers them competent at a local level.

His generation dismissed “Project-Fear” considering it completely ridiculous. Having hidden behind a buttress on a bridge at the age of 12 from a Messerschmitt strafing run and then went through the 1940-50s rationing, the Wilson 1967 de-valuation, the 1970’s 3 day week, power cuts, constant strikes, the calling in of the IMF and and “winter of discontent”, the idea of a possible recession to re-establish independence was a no-brainer and wasn’t even much of a consideration.

Even if we have a tough recession (I have mooted on here a possible -5% GDP) we’ll be fine and prosper in the medium to long term. The Britsh will find a way. We have always found a way.

BILL PATRICKAdditionally, some of train costs are due to having to order specially made trains to deal with our tunnel sizes.

That of course was because the old companies didn’t try to standardise anything, at least until WW1.

On nationalisation, “Robin” Riddles did go a long way towards standardising both rolling stock and steam locomotives. Quite rightly, he took the French view that running steam trains using cheap local coal was a better idea than going diesel [except for shunters] until BR could be fully electrified.

The 1951 Con government took a different view and abolished the Railway Executive in 1953, putting a lot of effort into diesels which caused operating problems post Suez. If you’re interested in Railways, the biography in the article I link to is well worth a read.

@ carfrew . whether m.p’s are moderate by your interpretive standards isn’t really the point , that is the moniker they choose to be known by . But as you have stated many times there political philosophy is clearly rooted nearer to the liberal / social democratic mode than as opposed to corbyn’s strain of socialism which I suggest rather backs up my view of the inevitable parting of the waves .

I think the one thing your analysis misses is the human factor in the Labour Party’s future: in my experience the Bulk of Labour Party MP’s and members consider it “their party” that is more than just a vehicle for political aims but is in some senses part of who they are as people.
I imagine there is a Blairite Group of no more than 30 of the current MP’s who do not have this visceral connection but approach membership in an entirely intellectual manner, however the rest are Gaitskills “I will fight, fight and fight again to save the party I love”. In my judgment this was no better demonstrated than in 1981 when the Gang of Four set up the SDP, they could take only a few with them. Even earlier Ramsay McDonald wasn’t able to take the bulk of the PLP with him when he became National Labour despite his standing in the Party.
You may be right about the future but I think the Labour Party will either tear itself apart or come to realise that in a FPTP system you cannot be a PR party and an internal grand coalition will again emerge: the Labour Party has been most successful when it has done this (see Harold Wilson: I still can’t believe that Crossland and Crossman were in the same cabinet)

“The Court of justice says all services – even transport – can be ratified by a qualified majority vote, which is potentially quite a big opening for the UK,” said Steve Peers, professor of EU law at Essex University

“@ carfrew . whether m.p’s are moderate by your interpretive standards isn’t really the point , that is the moniker they choose to be known by . But as you have stated many times there political philosophy is clearly rooted nearer to the liberal / social democratic mode than as opposed to corbyn’s strain of socialism which I suggest rather backs up my view of the inevitable parting of the waves.”

—————

As I indicated, I am actually referring to polling. Polling shows many have issues with free movement, with free schools, are ok with nationalisation so it’s no use trying to suggest it’s just my opinion.

There is also an additional straightforward logic to it. E.g. Loads of nationalisation is extreme. Loads of privatisation is extreme, a mix of the two is more moderate.

But we agree yes that a parting is a definite possibility as a result. It was rumoured on here some of the PLP may join the LDs, a better fit really…

“Indeed there were more winners than losers, not to denigrate those who had it tough as we pivoted away from certain industries that we were no longer competitive in.”

———–

Sure some industries struggled in the oil crisis, e.g. Auto, but others like French and US support theirs through it all and then they thrive later. As Guymonde et al will tell you, Renault even controlling Nissan or whatever. We saved Rolls and they did well until recent difficulties. Auto didn’t bring oil crisis on themselves but we saved banks despite their mess up, and pumped much money into SE economy in the process…

Back to polls- after a slight uptick for Labour which seems to have stalled and a settling down from the Conservatives to between 46-49% is the only real interest now in those 18% or so of D/K or is there still likely to be some leakage from UKIP and LD voters?

Is it possible that Labour are doing what the Tories did in ’97 and ’01 – stacking up masses of votes in safe seats? If they are, then it could be that Labour do indeed poll 30 odd per cent (which I personally think is far-fetched), but as we know in FPTP, it’s vote distribution that counts.

Remarkable how thing have almost completely reversed in 20 short years.